War against Women

[MyReality]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

[micatala]

Pointless and insubstantive ad hominem. My point stands.

You point was an implausible excuse.

Not at all.

You came up with a 21 year old short paragraph. You stated, without a shred of evidence, that Obama purposely wrote this bio for political purposes, and purposely left it up online.

Wrong again, I speculated as to what reason it went uncorrected.

I am glad you accept you are engaging in speculation. As far as being uncorrected, you have not shown that Obama was even aware of its presence for the long period over which it was apparently online. Thus, your entire point is moot.

You were the one who suggested Obama deliberately put this out and left it up for political purposes. This is shown to be absurd for the simple reason Obama was not even involved in politics at the time this was put up, 1991 as I understand.

You also have provided no evidence at all for this suggestion.



I again call for evidence or a retraction.

Again, you can't take it when Obama is questioned.

False slander and a mild personal attack.

On your photobucket site, I think we can safely throw that source in the trash bucket.

Ad hominem.

False labeling on your part. Ad hominem is a fallacy where someone attacks the character of the person to avoid addressing the substance of their argument. I pointed out that the site was blatantly inaccurate.


That is not ad hominem, that is merely observing that the source you quoted is unreliable.

So a guy who kills 3000 people is equivalent to a guy who throws a brick through a congressman's window?

You think that's all Ayers did? You might want to educate yourself. From Wikipedia:

"Ayers participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago in October 1969, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan. Two major decisions came out of the "War Council." The first was to immediately begin a violent, armed struggle (e.g., bombings and armed robberies) against the state without attempting to organize or mobilize a broad swath of the public."

IS THAT NOT A TERRORIST?

I would agree, Ayers was arguably involved in terrorism. However, I reject the assertion that Ayers ever intended to kill anyone and I reject the ludicrous comparison of Ayers with Bin Laden.

Do you have ANY actual evidence, not a blog quote, that Ayers intended to kill anyone? If not, please retract your statement to that effect.

On the basis of your false equivalence, we could then say the Tea Party is all a bunch of terrorists and associates of terrorists.

Except the Tea Party is largely peaceable and law abiding, unlike the scum of the Occupy movement. Did you miss what they just did in Chicago?

Red Herring.

You likened Ayers to Bin Laden. Ayers did arguably, although he was never convicted, of property damage. You then say Obama should be somehow ashamed or held to account for tangential associations to Ayers.

Thus, by the same token, those in the Tea Party should also be held to account and smeared because one or more of them caused property damage, arguably with intent to intimidate and threaten a member of congress.


Again, I am simply pointing out the logical implications of your own argument. You are the one engaged in smear tactics, not me.

Back this up. I think this is an out and out falsehood and I think you know that it is. Ayers never killed anybody and has stated numerous times he took care to make sure he killed nobody.

I would expect a terrorist to lie, and someone who loves Obama so much to believe him.

More completely unsubstantiated speculation on your part. You may be right, but you have no evidence for this. It is certainly true that Ayers never killed anyone. It is also pretty clear from his actoins that he took care not to do so. So, not only are you engaging in speculation as far as his honesty, you are doing so against the actual facts.


I again call for a retraction. Back up your statement or retract.

You stated that Ayers, like Bin Laden, intended to kill people.


Where is the evidence for this claim?

You equated Ayers with Bin Laden.

Yes, both were terrorists, Ayers being one of the most infamous ones of that period. Contrary to your misrepresentation, I never said Ayers killed 3,000 people. Actually, according to a former FBI agent, he wanted to kill many more:

"Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant who infiltrated The Weather Underground, testified before Congress that Ayers wanted to overthrow the United States government. In an interview in January 2009, Grathwohl stated that:
"The most bone chilling thing Bill Ayers said to me was that after the revolution succeeded and the government was overthrown, they believed they would have to eliminate 25 million Americans who would not conform to the new order."[60]

Well, I'll count this as evidence of a sort. But why should Grathwohl be considered any more reliable than Ayers? And this is pretty weak evidence. One gay making a claim about what Ayers once said. This weighed against the actual actions of Ayers which clearly showed he did not, and took pains not to, kill people.


Again, I am not here to defend Ayers. I am only interested in accuracy. You have made a lot of inaccurate statements, and statements without support that in fact are at odds with the evidence.



My main point is on the association of Ayers and Obama. Your attempts at some kind of close association, or an implied approval by Obama of Ayers actions, are nothing more than a smear, and you have provided no evidence to suggest otherwise.

On your other question, it depends. If the bombing was many years in the past and the person in question has lived a law abiding life for a couple of decades

Your problem is that as late as 2001 Ayers had no regrets and wished he had done more.

Sorry, this is a misrepresentation or at best speculation. Ayers wanted to stop the Viet Nam war. He regreted he was unable to do that.

And again, this is tangential to the actual association.

I would consider it a small matter, along the lines of the hair cut incident.

Absolutely incredible you would equate someone who envisioned killing 25,000,000 Americans with the Romney non-story.

False slander on your part. You owe me an apology. I never said anything that even implied this.


I will cease responding until this issue is addressed.










*******

[micatala]

Here is the context related to the last issue raised in the previous post.

Speaking of terrorists, are you going to keep avoiding my question of if Romney started his political career at the house of an abortion bomber it would be OK?

You equated Ayers with Bin Laden. Not my fault you now want to dodge the implications of your own false claims but coming up with an excuse about something you didn't say. What you did not say does not negate what you did.


On your other question, it depends. If the bombing was many years in the past and the person in question has lived a law abiding life for a couple of decades and was accepted in his political circle and the organization of the event was not done by Romney himself, then I would consider it a small matter, along the lines of the hair cut incident.

In addressing East of Eden's question, I was addressing his hypothetical abortion bomber, not Ayers.

Not only was I not speaking of Ayers, I was certainly not suggesting this was in the context of a person who actually suggested 25 million people be killed. Whether Ayers did or did not actually make this statement is a separate matter.

[Wyvern]

As late as 2001 Ayers was unrepentant and wished he could have done more. He himself said he was guilty as hell, yet free as a bird. He wasn't acquitted, it was a botched prosecution. A few more quotes from this traitorous creep friend of Obama's:

So even though you say he knew he was guilty as hell he still turned himself in? You say he is unrepentant then why in the world would anyone willingly turn themselves in for prosecution? And now here you are forty years after the fact blaming him because the prosecution messed up horribly.

Ayers stated, "I'm not so much against the war as I am for a Vietnamese victory," and "I'm not so much for peace as for a U.S. defeat."
In 1970, Ayers explained what the Weather Underground was all about: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

Ayers was how old exactly when he supposedly said such things? And how much later was it that he met Obama? How about telling us the last time Ayers committed any kind of terrorist activity. Or are you now going to ignore the constitution which guarrantees our freedom of speech and association for that matter.

Why couldn't Obama come up with those facts? I suspect they don't really bother him, being the radical he is.

Do you do a background check on every person you meet?

and yet seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that he willingly turned himself in to face prosecution

I'm oblivious to it because it is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with one's guilt or innocence.

But it says everything about how he was willing to face his accusers and pay for his crimes, i.e. he was being repentant.

to which he was found not guilty.

Cite or retract. Even Ayers said he was guilty. It was a botched case, otherwise Ayers would have gone to jail for a long time and Obama would have had to find another radical's house to start his career in.

"In 1973, new information came to light about FBI operations targeted against Weather Underground and the New Left, all part of a series of covert and often illegal FBI projects called COINTEL.[20] Due to the illegal tactics[clarification needed] of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons- and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground, including charges against Ayers.[21]" Wikipedia

Why would you ask me to cite something which you then provide? Ok even better he was not found not guilty, the case was thrown out as your own citation shows.

You also seem more than willing to post quotes of his demonstrating his willingness to kill but seem incapable of showing a single person he killed or even note he went to lengths to avoid killing people in his bombings.

I said he was a terrorist, not a murderer. A terrorist who sets off bombs that don't happen to kill someone is still a terrorist. According to some, Ayers and his wife ARE implicated in a murder:

Ahh so you admit he is not on the same level as a Bin Laden then? Its not only that his bombs didn't happen to kill anyone implying that it was by accident, he went to great lengths to ensure noone got killed. If it wasn't for the fact he used explosives he would have been called a vandal.

It almost seems you think that a person can't change over time and yet it is demonstrably true that the baby boomers of his generation did just that time and time again. Christianity itself is based on the idea that a person can change their ways and yet you are unwilling to consider this even a vague possibility for your political rivals.

Where is Ayers' repentance? In Christianity, forgiveness always comes after that. Ayers said he didn't regret setting off bombs, that he didn't do enough, and when asked if he would do it again, said he didn't want to discount the possibility.

So you do not consider the fact that he gave himself up to the authorities in order to face prosecution repentance? Or even that someone can change over the years, look at all the hippies there were in the 70's, where are they now?

I have a photobucket account too, so if I make a sign that says Romney eats babies and you dismiss it that would be an ad hominem?

I would focus on the claim, not obsess on the medium used to convey a point. We call that a red herring.

Your photobucket pic has exactly as much citation as mine, what makes yours more valid?

Can't you find a single news source that says the same thing?

OK, where IS Obama's Columbia thesis?

Was that his doctoral thesis? Doctoral theses get published, senior ones he can keep and do with what he wants. Now how about finding a single news source that says the same things as the photobucket pic does instead of avoiding the question as always and bringing up red herrings.

Why do you think we should assume everything you find on the net is immediately valid?

Quit making stuff up, I never said that.

Then why can't you find anything more reliable to cite other than random bloggers and photobucket pictures? Why do you expect us to take you seriously if you are down to this level of material to back your claims?

Considering your recent links you have been making you should be asking yourself this.

http://i1181.photobucket.com/album ... CVR.jpg
See address this photobucket pic, prove what it says is wrong. Since you think photobucket is a valid news source.

Is a fact posted on photobucket not a fact anymore?

My photobucket pic has the exact same amount of factual cited evidence as yours(zero) so why do you think yours is valid but mine is not?

If my link claiming the missing Obama info is actually wrong, please produce his Columbia thesis and all the rest.

I'm sorry but the rules of evidence means that since you brought up the claim it is your duty to provide evidence for your claim. So in response I would say cite a reputable source or retract your claim. Here's a hint an uncited picture created on photobucket does not count.

[WinePusher]

I specifically stated that this new rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires (forces) most health insurance plans to cover beneficial preventive services for women. Employers should not interfere with the private health-related decisions made by their employees. Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exempt psychiatric care from their employer-based health care plan? Should a Christian fundie who believe in the power of prayer be allowed to exempt medical treatment of diabetes?

Your analogies are totally off base. Is there a government mandate out there that forces employers to cover psychiatric care and diabetic medications? And you know full well that contraceptives are not only use for preventive healthcare measures, they're used to prevent pregnancies. There are multiple uses for birth control as opposed to things like diabetic medication, which really only has one use.

Would you prefer that, since nearly every employers has private biases, that we do away with employer-based health care and give everyone the option of enrolling in Medicare?

What I would prefer is for insurance companies to compete nationally which would solve this so called 'problem.' If I work for a Catholic institution and they won't cover my birth control pills but I want my insurance to cover birth control, I would simply go to another insurance provider that does cover birth control. But because of the way the law is written, the number of insurance options I can choose from is limited.

Contraception might be one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market, however high costs are one of the primary barriers to contraceptive access.[2] Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs. More than half of young adult women say they have not used their contraception as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.[ibid.]

Should all women have access to their preferred method of birth control, or should only wealthy women have this privilege?

It's funny you'd ask that since there are plenty of birth control methods out there, not including contraceptives. If a woman wants to have recreational sex and can't afford contraceptives, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. You are only kidding yourself if you think that this issue is solely about the medical aspect of birth control. Once insurance companies start covering birth control do you really think that women will utilize it only for medical purposes? You really don't think women will use it in order to have recreational sex, which is something religious institutions like the Catholic Church consider morally wrong?

War against Women? Give me a break, more like a War against Religious Freedom and Liberty.

You talk of religious freedom… But you forget that my health care decisions should be free of your religion nonsense. Your liberty ends where my health begins!

How am I limiting your healthcare decisionmaking freedom by saying that birth control shouldn't be forced into insurance plans by the government? I'm not saying that birth control should be banned, in fact I'm not even saying that insurance plans should never cover birth control. I'm saying that institutions that provide insurance should be able to determine what is included and what isn't included....the horror . Would you still be arguing for this if the government imposed a mandate saying that Catholic Employers had to cover abortions in their insurance plans.

Why is it you want to alter an HMO's business plan in order to fit your definition of what insurance is and specifically in this case health insurance. Why do you insist it makes better business sense for an HMO to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat a heart attack and other such expensive unexpected and catastrophic events instead of treating the patient with simple and cheap procedures which will forestall the heart attack in the first place? Strangely enough I looked through my health plan and not once do they call themselves health insurance, the company which runs my health plan is not a health insurance company it is a health maintenance organization. The government is not forcing employers to cover contraceptives except for the HMO's which considering the positive health aspects contraceptives give to women it is simply good business for them to do so. Why is it I a liberal has to explain to a conservative a good business practice?

Right, so let's get this straight. In Wyvern's world contraception and birth control is the same as heart attack prevention procedures. Fascinating.

As for your HMO nonsense, the contraception mandate doesn't just apply to HMO's. If it did there would be no contreversy because most HMO's are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. It applies to all insurance plans and providers.

[McCulloch]

[...]Catholic Employers [...]

Under the law, there is no such thing as Catholic Employers. The employer/employee relationship is not a religious one and there should be no discrimination based on religion is such relationships. At least according to our constitution and legal precedents.

[East of Eden]

Pointless and insubstantive ad hominem. My point stands.

You point was an implausible excuse.

Not at all.

You came up with a 21 year old short paragraph. You stated, without a shred of evidence, that Obama purposely wrote this bio for political purposes, and purposely left it up online.

Wrong again, I speculated as to what reason it went uncorrected.

I am glad you accept you are engaging in speculation. As far as being uncorrected, you have not shown that Obama was even aware of its presence for the long period over which it was apparently online. Thus, your entire point is moot.

You were the one who suggested Obama deliberately put this out and left it up for political purposes. This is shown to be absurd for the simple reason Obama was not even involved in politics at the time this was put up, 1991 as I understand.

You also have provided no evidence at all for this suggestion.

I again call for evidence or a retraction.

I have no obligation to retract speculation. Most unbiased people would think it fishy that this important 'error' was uncorrected until 2007. Obama isn't that dumb.

False slander and a mild personal attack.

No, just an observation, and no more of an attack than when you accuse me of groundless smears and slander.

False labeling on your part. Ad hominem is a fallacy where someone attacks the character of the person to avoid addressing the substance of their argument. I pointed out that the site was blatantly inaccurate.

That is not ad hominem, that is merely observing that the source you quoted is unreliable.

It was an ad hominem, that post pointed out things from Obama's past that have not been released.

I would agree, Ayers was arguably involved in terrorism. However, I reject the assertion that Ayers ever intended to kill anyone and I reject the ludicrous comparison of Ayers with Bin Laden.

Do you have ANY actual evidence, not a blog quote, that Ayers intended to kill anyone? If not, please retract your statement to that effect.

People who set off bombs in public places don't have qualms about killing innocent people. According to this definition of terrorism, you don't have to kill to be one:

"noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."

Red Herring.

You likened Ayers to Bin Laden.

Both are/were unrepentant terrorists, yes.

Ayers did arguably, although he was never convicted, of property damage.

Thanks to a botched prosecution.

You then say Obama should be somehow ashamed or held to account for tangential associations to Ayers.

Yes, I do, and launching your political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist is hardly 'tangenital'.

Thus, by the same token, those in the Tea Party should also be held to account and smeared because one or more of them caused property damage, arguably with intent to intimidate and threaten a member of congress.

Cite? I'll go further and be critical of Obama/Pelosi for the nice things they've said about the Occupy movement, with their trail of criminal acts, most recently stabbing a cop in Chicago.

Again, I am simply pointing out the logical implications of your own argument. You are the one engaged in smear tactics, not me.

So why did RFK's son refuse to honor Ayers when given the chance, but rather denounced him? I'll suggest it was because he isn't a radical, and he has character. This is what Kennedy said about Ayers:

“I intend to vote against conferring the honorific title of our university to a man whose body of work includes a book dedicated in part to the man who murdered my father, Robert F. Kennedy. There can be no place in a democracy to celebrate political assassinations or to honor those who do so.�

More completely unsubstantiated speculation on your part. You may be right, but you have no evidence for this. It is certainly true that Ayers never killed anyone. It is also pretty clear from his actoins that he took care not to do so. So, not only are you engaging in speculation as far as his honesty, you are doing so against the actual facts.


I again call for a retraction. Back up your statement or retract.

You stated that Ayers, like Bin Laden, intended to kill people.


Where is the evidence for this claim?

There are good reasons to think he WAS involved in a murder:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 16DHA4.DTL

Well, I'll count this as evidence of a sort. But why should Grathwohl be considered any more reliable than Ayers?

This conversation really is pointless if you can't even agree an FBI agent is more credible than a terrorist involved in many criminal acts, whose group declared war on the United States.

My main point is on the association of Ayers and Obama. Your attempts at some kind of close association, or an implied approval by Obama of Ayers actions, are nothing more than a smear, and you have provided no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Nonsense, what you call a smear are simply facts.

Sorry, this is a misrepresentation or at best speculation.

No, it is not. Do you deny Ayers made those quotes?

Ayers wanted to stop the Viet Nam war. He regreted he was unable to do that.

So? Abortion clinic bombers want to stop abortion, which doesn't mitigate their crimes.

[micatala]

Since East of Eden refuses to back up his assertions, continues to engage in smear by association, responds to challenges to his assertions by throwing out red herrings and additional unsubstantiated or irrelevant accusations, and because the issue is off topic anyway, this will be my last word in this thread on the Ayers issue.


Is Ayers a terrorist? Yes. His actions as part of the Weather Underground were violent and inappropriate. Although he took care to avoid killing anyone, he still engaged in violence to a political end. However, likening him to Bin Laden is ridiculous. There are levels of evil and Ayers is not in the same realm as Bin Laden by any stretch of the imagination.


But the main point is that the association of Ayers with Obama is nothing more than a political smear. As pointed out numerous times, Obama and Ayers were at best casual acquaintances, and there is no evidence Obama ever intentionally associated with Ayers. The rhetoric that Obama "palled around with terrorists" as suggested by Palin for example is ridiculous and deplorable propaganda and people who use such rhetoric deserve to be labeled as slanderers and worse. East of Eden has repeatedly refused to even attempt to provide any evidence or examples of intentional associations by Obama with Ayers.


What is true is that Ayers and Obama were part of groups that were founded or initiated by others. This would include the Woods association and the Chicago Annenberg project. In both cases, others invited Ayers and Obama to be part of these groups. I will note for the record that the Annenberg project is named for Walter Annenberg, a Republican and an individual who worked for the Reagan Administration.

Following East of Eden's practice of smear by association, an appropriate headline would be:

"Reaganite funds project led by former terrorist."

This statement has actually more going for it than East of Eden's smears in that the Annenberg Foundation provided funds to the project and Ayers was involved in dispensing those funds. They are more than indirectly responsible for the fact that Ayers was involved in a project bearing their name.



East of Eden will of course refuse to use an equal yard stick in addressing such issues, as has been evident throughout this thread. It is also evident East of Eden is not interested in providing reliable evidence for his claims, suggestions, and speculations. While a few tidbits of accurate information have been provided, in the main we have completely unsubstantiated remarks or demonstrably unreliable sources.



As a final example, I will note that John McCain appeared on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program, at Liddy's invitation. This is what I would call an intentional association. Now, Liddy is not a terrorist necessarily. However, he is a convicted criminal and was involved in very intentional activities to subvert the democratic process for political ends through illegal means. He is on record as saying it would be OK to shoot federal officials in the face. While I know of no actual violence committed by Liddy, he is arguably guilty of making terroristic threats.


Has East of Eden ever once mentioned this much more intentional association of McCain with a known radical promoter of violence, convicted lawbreaker, and subverter of democracy?


And yet, at every turn in multiple threads, East of Eden throws in, despite it being off topic, the "Obama-Ayers" association. He brings it up all on his own, unbidden and with barely, if any, connection to the topic at hand. When challenged on both the relevance of the comment and the nature of the accusation of association, he avoids those issues and instead rails on about how evil Ayers is.





How can this be seen as anything other than politically motivated smear tactics?

[ThatGirlAgain]

[...]Catholic Employers [...]

Under the law, there is no such thing as Catholic Employers. The employer/employee relationship is not a religious one and there should be no discrimination based on religion is such relationships. At least according to our constitution and legal precedents.

In some limited cases the employer/employee relationship is a religious one. When an organization is actually part of a church and everyone must be a member of that church, then it is a religious one. Such organizations are entitled under the present law to not provide the type of insurance that is deemed controversial. But when an employee does not have to be a member of the church in question, then the relationship is not a religious one and the person is legally entitled to the insurance coverage that is mandated by the current law.

The issue is whether an organization that is run by a church and is subject to oversight by that church relative to religious matters should be compelled to provide services that the church considers immoral. IMO this is a debatable point and hinges on what exactly is meant by 'providing services'.

For example, if an insurance firm allegedly fails to provide an expected service and damages result from that, can the company who engaged that insurance firm also be named in a law suit? If that is the case, then the company is presumed to have some control over the services provided by the insurance firm. The company might then be said to be to some extent providing the services. But if the company has previously disclaimed all liability for what the insurance firm does or does not do, then the company has in effect said they are not providing the services. I wonder what the fine print says for Catholic hospitals.

[nursebenjamin]

I specifically stated that this new rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires (forces) most health insurance plans to cover beneficial preventive services for women. Employers should not interfere with the private health-related decisions made by their employees. Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exempt psychiatric care from their employer-based health care plan? Should a Christian fundie who believe in the power of prayer be allowed to exempt medical treatment of diabetes?

Your analogies are totally off base. Is there a government mandate out there that forces employers to cover psychiatric care and diabetic medications? And you know full well that contraceptives are not only use for preventive healthcare measures, they're used to prevent pregnancies. There are multiple uses for birth control as opposed to things like diabetic medication, which really only has one use.

Again, this new rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires (forces) most health insurance plans to cover certain beneficial preventive services. It does not require (force) employers to provide Health Care for their Employee. (However, large employers will have to pay a smell penalty if they do not, and small business will receive tax credits if they do.) We shouldn’t even be discussing what is required of employers; we should instead be discussing what is required of health insurance companies.

<<<“Is there a government mandate out there that forces [s]employers[/s] [health insurance plans] to cover psychiatric care and diabetic medications?�>>>
Yes. To ensure that Americans have access to quality, affordable health care, there are rules in place and/or proposed that require insurance companies to provide comprehensive package of items and services, known as “essential health benefits�. These “essential health benefits� do included mental health services and chronic disease management [e.g. diabetes].[3]

<<“And you know full well that contraceptives are not only use for preventive healthcare measures, they're used to prevent pregnancies.�>>
So what is your point? Oral contraceptives and sterilization are frequently used for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Should only rich women have access to their contraception of choice? Should poor women be barefoot and pregnant? If the goal of the nation is to provide a basic level of health care to everyone, shouldn’t contraception be considered as part of a basic level of health care?

Would you prefer that, since nearly every employers has private biases, that we do away with employer-based health care and give everyone the option of enrolling in Medicare?

What I would prefer is for insurance companies to compete nationally which would solve this so called 'problem.' If I work for a Catholic institution and they won't cover my birth control pills but I want my insurance to cover birth control, I would simply go to another insurance provider that does cover birth control. But because of the way the law is written, the number of insurance options I can choose from is limited.

<<“What I would prefer is for insurance companies to compete nationally which would solve this so called 'problem.�>>
Yes, we’re discussed this before, http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 284#398284, but I don’t believe that you have supported your case.

<<“I would simply go to another insurance provider that does cover birth control.�>>
In the real world, it is not that easy to change one’s insurance provider. Most citizens in the U.S., under the age of 65, has a health care plan provided as a term of one’s employment. Leaving one’s employer-based health care plan would amount to a significant pay cut.

Contraception might be one of the most accessible and cheapest drugs on the market, however high costs are one of the primary barriers to contraceptive access.[2] Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs. More than half of young adult women say they have not used their contraception as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.[ibid.]

Should all women have access to their preferred method of birth control, or should only wealthy women have this privilege?

It's funny you'd ask that since there are plenty of birth control methods out there, not including contraceptives. If a woman wants to have recreational sex and can't afford contraceptives, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. You are only kidding yourself if you think that this issue is solely about the medical aspect of birth control. Once insurance companies start covering birth control do you really think that women will utilize it only for medical purposes? You really don't think women will use it in order to have recreational sex, which is something religious institutions like the Catholic Church consider morally wrong?

So basically what you are saying is that federal laws and regulations should reflect what the Catholic Church deems morally acceptable?

You talk of religious freedom… But you forget that my health care decisions should be free of your religion nonsense. Your liberty ends where my health begins!

How am I limiting your healthcare decisionmaking freedom by saying that birth control shouldn't be forced into insurance plans by the government? I'm not saying that birth control should be banned, in fact I'm not even saying that insurance plans should never cover birth control. I'm saying that institutions that provide insurance should be able to determine what is included and what isn't included....the horror . Would you still be arguing for this if the government imposed a mandate saying that Catholic Employers had to cover abortions in their insurance plans.

I believe that everyone should have equal access to basic affordable health care. Countries that ensure equal access to affordable health care are more moral than those that do not. The U.S. government has failed her citizens on this front. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is by no means perfect, but is a step in the right direction.

Birth control of one’s choice (as well as prenatal/postnatal) is basic health care that everyone should have equal access to. If you don’t want to use birth control, than don’t use it; but the rest of us should have equal access to affordable birth control of one’s choice.

<<“I'm saying that institutions that provide insurance should be able to determine what is included and what isn't included�>>
Yeah, we’ve seen how well that has worked for America:
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
This is America, and we deserve equal access to basic health care! Yeah, this will probably be more expensive compared to status quo, but sometimes you get what you pay for.

[East of Eden]

Since East of Eden refuses to back up his assertions, continues to engage in smear by association, responds to challenges to his assertions by throwing out red herrings and additional unsubstantiated or irrelevant accusations, and because the issue is off topic anyway, this will be my last word in this thread on the Ayers issue.

What a load of nonsense, smear, and untruths in one paragraph.

Is Ayers a terrorist? Yes. His actions as part of the Weather Underground were violent and inappropriate.

So why did Obama associate with him? RFK's son wouldn't have done that.

Although he took care to avoid killing anyone, he still engaged in violence to a political end. However, likening him to Bin Laden is ridiculous. There are levels of evil and Ayers is not in the same realm as Bin Laden by any stretch of the imagination.

Are both terrorists or not? The mayor of your town and your state governor are both politicians, it doesn't mean they are the same.

But the main point is that the association of Ayers with Obama is nothing more than a political smear.

Again, what you call a smear others call facts. It's like the MSM who get indignant when inconvenient truths they sit on come out.

As pointed out numerous times, Obama and Ayers were at best casual acquaintances, and there is no evidence Obama ever intentionally associated with Ayers.

Baloney. Launching your political career in the home of a casual acquaintance. There are some who say Ayers was the ghostwriter of one of Obama's books, and Ayers himself has spoken of it, only half-jokingly.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/280073/

The rhetoric that Obama "palled around with terrorists" as suggested by Palin for example is ridiculous and deplorable propaganda and people who use such rhetoric deserve to be labeled as slanderers and worse.

Nonsense, once again Palin nails it.

East of Eden has repeatedly refused to even attempt to provide any evidence or examples of intentional associations by Obama with Ayers.

I've been doing nothing but providing such evidence, which you then shut your eyes to and claim doesn't exist. It's getting old.

What is true is that Ayers and Obama were part of groups that were founded or initiated by others. This would include the Woods association and the Chicago Annenberg project. In both cases, others invited Ayers and Obama to be part of these groups. I will note for the record that the Annenberg project is named for Walter Annenberg, a Republican and an individual who worked for the Reagan Administration.

Following East of Eden's practice of smear by association, an appropriate headline would be:

"Reaganite funds project led by former terrorist."

A legitimate story, I don't think Ayers should have been on that project either.

East of Eden will of course refuse to use an equal yard stick in addressing such issues, as has been evident throughout this thread. It is also evident East of Eden is not interested in providing reliable evidence for his claims, suggestions, and speculations. While a few tidbits of accurate information have been provided, in the main we have completely unsubstantiated remarks or demonstrably unreliable sources.

Micatala makes another giant false statement, as you would put it. You want to at least be honest enough to admit Ayers may very well have been involved in murder in SF?

As a final example, I will note that John McCain appeared on G. Gordon Liddy's radio program, at Liddy's invitation. This is what I would call an intentional association. Now, Liddy is not a terrorist necessarily.

Making your following point moot.

However, he is a convicted criminal and was involved in very intentional activities to subvert the democratic process for political ends through illegal means. He is on record as saying it would be OK to shoot federal officials in the face. While I know of no actual violence committed by Liddy, he is arguably guilty of making terroristic threats.

Has East of Eden ever once mentioned this much more intentional association of McCain with a known radical promoter of violence, convicted lawbreaker, and subverter of democracy?

No comparison between being interviewed by a radio host and collaborating with an unrepentant terrorist.

And yet, at every turn in multiple threads, East of Eden throws in, despite it being off topic, the "Obama-Ayers" association. He brings it up all on his own, unbidden and with barely, if any, connection to the topic at hand. When challenged on both the relevance of the comment and the nature of the accusation of association, he avoids those issues and instead rails on about how evil Ayers is.

My point is the radicalism and lack of character that would lead Obama to associate with an unrepentant terrorist. When this plain fact is ever mentioned here, it usually blows up when Obama defenders dispute this truth. Your permission isn't needed to bring up points relevant to Obama.

How can this be seen as anything other than politically motivated smear tactics?

i.e., facts.